User talk:Boghog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:BogBot)
Jump to: navigation, search

Variability in PSA Measurement[edit]

I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals.


I just made some edits to the 1L-1a page that were rejected in whole. I can see if the wording is an issue, but having reviewed the page referring to primary sources, I do not think that, Elsevier, or the numerous PubMed links could be problem. If you want the name of the drug used removed, that would be fine, but it is no lie or mistruth to say that there are more iL-1a agonist pharmaceutical applications being examined than currently listed. If there's a change in wording you'd like, let me know. In my text, I attempted to try to limit talking too promotional a tone by taking the wording from the "Purpose" sections in the case of currently running clinical trials. In hindsight, I think that I should have used the exact wording from the findings/results sections in the PubMed and if you want to talk about what that would look like, that's fine. That said, it is not an untruth that the pharmaceutical applications are being examined. Moreover, I maintain that the sources are legitimate. The sources are (in order) as follows. Let me know which one would count as a primary source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccargo (talkcontribs) 22:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. The problem is that all the sources you have added are primary. PMID: 25484055 which briefly mentions MABp1 is secondary. Primary sources can be used to document that a drug is in clinical trials, but they cannot be used to state that a drug is effective. Secondary sources (review articles) are needed to support efficacy claims. Also per WP:PHARMOS, drugs should be referred to using their nonproprietary names (MABp1) and not their trade names (Xilonix). Finally leukocyte Interleukin (Multikine) is a mixture of 14 cytokines, only one of which is IL1A, hence it doesn't really belong in the the IL1A article. I have restored a part of your additions replacing primary with secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is how you respond on here (as you can tell I'm about as new as they come), but thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems fair. (Though the Multikine wasn't me, I thought the same thing, but I didn't want to touch it.) I'm going to be honest, I don't see myself showing the same commitment to editing here. (Some are editors and some are readers) Would it have been better to just put a message up on the talk page for IL-1a and let someone else do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccargo (talkcontribs) 13:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase[edit]

Hello. You have recently merged Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase with DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase. We are 4 students of a Medicine University and we have just realized that our contributions are not visible. This is a problem because when the teacher will correct our work won't know where to find what we have done. All the article you emerged with DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase is our work and we want you to do something about this. Please answer me. We are waiting an early answer to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Arafi (talkcontribs) 09:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your contributions. The content fork that you created is still visible in the article's history. Since content forks are by definition redundant and result in repetition of content, they are to be avoided. If it is essential for your course that your material is undisturbed before being graded, I strongly suggest that you use a sandbox instead of creating new articles in Wikipedia mainspace. Wikipedia is encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time. Boghog (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase merger[edit]

Which is the reason for the merger? Both terms, DNA-3-methyladenine DNA Glycosyalse and Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase, are different concepts, being DNA-3-methyladenine DNA Glycosyalse an enzyme in E. coli and Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase a different enzyme that, despite sharing the function, have considerably different structure and mechanism, as well as another function (ODG activity) that DNA-3-methyladenine DNA Glycosyalse lacks of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Salmeron (talkcontribs) 10:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Actually there were three different articles. Previously there was DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase II (enzyme) and MPG (gene) (gene/protein) articles. As Gene Wiki articles are not only about human genes but also orthologs in other species, the Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase that you created was a fork of the previous MPG (gene) article. I renamed MPG (gene) as DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase and merged material from Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase and DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase II. There is only one human gene, MPG, that encodes a EC enzyme, I thought it made sense also to merge the enzyme and gene articles. As you point out, the bacterial and vertebrate enzymes, while catalyzing the same type of reactions, have different folds:
  • EC
    • vertebrate DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase (MPG; P29372) that contains a single protein domain:
    • E. Coli DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase 2 (TAG II; P04395) that contains two protein domains:
      • Pfam PF06029 – AlkA N-terminal domain that is responsible for activity
      • Pfam PF00730 – HhH-GPD superfamily base excision DNA repair protein
So, in summary, DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase should include material from MPG (gene) and Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase but the material from DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase II (enzyme) should be split out again as a separate article. Boghog (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good morning Boghog, we are the creators of the wikipedia article that you merged with yours:" Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase". We are 1st-year students of Medical School in Barcelona (Spain) and this article was a project for our Biochemistry Class which has a agreement with the local offices of Wkipedia. Because of the modification that you made, our article doesnt exist anymore and the project is due tomorrow so we want to ask you to undo the merge until November 10th and then you can do whatever you want. This project counts a 30% of our final grade and we would appreciate if we can restore our work. Thank you, Martín Marzabal — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Mmarzabal (talkcontribs) 11:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This is becoming a real mess. Undoing and redoing my edits will create an even bigger mess. I request that you use your sandbox for further work on the article. I have taken the liberty of creating a sandbox in your user space (see User:BQUB15-Mmarzabal/Sandbox) that contains your version of the article. Please note that the history of the edits that created this version may be found here. Boghog (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
In retrospect, I should have merged MPG (gene) into Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase and then moved the merged article to DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase. This would have preserved the original edit history of Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase. Sorry about that. I have unmerged the DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase II enzyme article and added a new Evolution section to that article which mentions the two different protein folds (bacterial and vertebrate) that share the same enzymatic activity. Boghog (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Telokin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

CISH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to TCR
Interleukin 28B (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Polymorphism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Drug discovery[edit]

I reverted an edit you made at drug discovery because the link involved was spammed rapid-fire to many articles - WP:REFSPAM. If you feel the reference was indeed appropriate at this article, please feel free to add it back. Since you seem to be active in editing in this subject area, will you please examine the other articles where I reverted this addition and revert me if you think I was wrong to remove it? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at my contribution history to see what articles I'm referring to. It should be fairly clear. Deli nk (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Did not know[edit]

...that you were an expert on the inflammasome, but your work at the NALP3 article was a distinct improvement over what appeared before. I am glad your periodically disrespectful commitments regarding this editor occasionally point in a constructive direction. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that you should not leave the primary sources that appeared in the Further reading, where they are appropriate. They may not be useful as citations in the article, but they reflect a lot of work, and represent expertise, and so could be of value in the directions they point, so others can find secondary articles to draw from on those subjects. Perhaps paste them into talk for the time being, if not back in to the article? Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I am not at all an expert on the NALP3 inflammasome, but a search of PubMed quickly lead me to several good review articles which I used to update the article and learned a lot in the process. This activity is a far more productive and rewarding than adding attention banners to articles ;-)
Concerning the further reading section, I was the one that originally added it in this edit. This citation list was created by User:ProteinBoxBot as part of the Gene Wiki project and I just copy and pasted the bot generated output into the article. The bottom of the protein infobox contains a PubMed link where an up-to-date citation list can be regenerated at any time. The purpose of the including the bot generated further reading list and the public domain Entrez text was to provide seed material that could later be expanded by human editors. Since this article has now has a significant number of in-line citations, the need for a further reading list is diminished. Boghog (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Bog, I did an edit adding further secondary sources to the lede, not that they (and the content to which they sre attached) should remain perfectly as they are, but that the additions are a starting point that the information find its way in at appropriate places. The move around of the definition of the acronym (and its demotion from bold) was to reduce bold in the lede, and to move understandable information on definition and function up. I even think an insertion of what an inflammasome is, is in order, given our mandate to reach non-specialist audiences. I also firmly believe, as the lede rewrite tag indicates, that even with explanations of the acronyms, the lede is still to jargonist, and without enough on structure, mechanism, and path. (Imagine a run of the mill grad school or new industrial medi-chemist reading this, before having years of human and microbial gene and protein name experience under belt. Then take a step further toward undergraduates, sixth formers, etc.) I hope it can evolve further as you have began, and that all my contributed explanation and sources will not be tossed. Lede tag can go as soon as you see fit. Le Prof (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Consistent formatting[edit]

Hi Boghog I noticed that you are having to fix some of my edits for consistent formatting after I made deprecated (co-authors)parameter fixes. I hope that hasn't been too frustrating for you. I have been individually listing the authors as described in the fix here which is obtained by clicking on the (help) link such as this example ref 3 here. I usually use the doi generator to generate the new cite parameters. Regards CV9933 (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message and no worries. I have a script for these Gene Wiki edits that fixes several other things in addition to adjusting the citation format. Replacing |coauthor= with explicit |first1=, |last1=, ... author parameters is a legitimate way to fix the deprecated parameter error. I prefer to use the |vauthors= parameter since it preserves the original formatting style. Boghog (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There are literally dozens of those that need fixing, a script is the way to go - I'll give them a miss. Regards.CV9933 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There are more than a few dozen but probably less than 100. I have gotten up to the letter M and will try to fix the remainder over the next week as I find time. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Maybe you can help out at photosynthesis. Its not a lot of work. An editor is angry with me and I dont agree with them, so someone else should look over their work. Hydrogen per se is not involved in photosynthesis unless it is coupled to a hydrogenase and even that is rare. But whatever, the main thing is to make the text right and clear, independent of my or their mood swing. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know the material, then stay out of it[edit]

Not everything needs a reference. That material I added is a statement of the obvious; obvious to anyone that knows something about the subject. If you knew the subject matter you would recognize the material was correct and improve it with the reference you think it needs rather than resort to the mindless nonsense of reverting an edit at the behest of your friend and inciting an edit war. Please read from this article to gain a basic understanding of the process.

From the wikipedia article on Photosystem II : "The hydrogen ions (protons) generated by the oxidation of water help to create a proton gradient that is used by ATP synthase to generate ATP."

An edit that is insightful, reasonable, and well written should remain; improve it rather than revert it. I don't need your permission nor anyone else's to perform edits here. Zedshort (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)